It was only the SIB who were inspected but they never attended to many if any of the HMIC's recommendations as detailed in the first inspection report. In all the report was quite good (you can find it on line), but the second inspection report highlights the HMIC's disappointment in their 'reluctance' to move (also on line). However, you would be surprised at the 'advice' given by HMIC to CivPol, who experience more criticism than RMP. The PM (A) at the time of the first HMIC inspection was in to much of a rush to wave the 'look at us, aren't we good' flag. He assumed that the HMIC report was 'carte blanche' to carry on normal jogging. Mind you, some of his internal advisers needed their arses kicking as it was they who refused to budge.
Word, as I have it, is that RMP are currently considering putting personnel on attachments to CivPol. I can honestly say that if this is aimed at the 'shop floor' it would be a wasted effort. They won't learn much there, despite this 'myth' that CivPol are all things to crime fighting which some would and do believe. Attendance on the senior and specialised courses which CivPol can provide are a must and indeed SIB do attend these, however, SIB won't learn anything in a CID Office as in most cases SIB are the better investigators.
This post will no doubt attract the usual suspects, but if you look on the HMIC website, you'll find several reports as to current competence issues with CivPol, particularly in management and overall knowledge of law and procedure. Don't take my word for it or anybody else's.....the 'facts' are there for you to read yourselves.
As for an ombudsman, the IPCC are well placed to take that role on, so there is no real need to create a separate body, which, for those of you who have rightly questioned independence of enquiries, would, if created, be staffed by former SIB. Independence lost straight away.
As for RAF investigating RMP, etc, etc., it's not the best solution but that may be all that there is currently.